November 30, 2011

The Occupy movement seems to have dropped out of the news lately. Why did that happen? I think the people are still out there, but the coverage is mostly gone. There is this Drudge-linked AP report about campers in LA and Philadelphia getting rousted by the police. That's a news event — cops in riot gear, people arrested — and it's covered. What's missing is all the attention to the demands and critiques of the protesters — the political substance of the movement.

I'm guessing that the expression of the protesters — in form and substance — wasn't serving the interests journalists favor. Excessively left-wing speech coming out of an angry/confused/unclean face... it's not helping the mainstream Democrats.

I met a buddy of mine over by McPherson square the other day. He had just come from an interview, and was wearing suit. He told me a bunch of ragged kids in the square screamed at him that he is what is wrong with America.

This might be a reason. People recognizing what these protests really are: a tantrum.

Excessively left-wing speech coming out of an angry/confused/unclean face... it's not helping the mainstream Democrats.

Well, there's that, and the fact that Animal Farm doesn't make a very complimentary commentary on the left's movement de jour. I realize that's glib, but, seriously, can you not wait for the first few books to come out that will delve into the daily inner workings and happenings in Zucatti? It really didn't take long at all for their little microsociety to fracture and produce it's own set of elites.

I remember a lot of bloggers and pundits from the left making wide-reaching statements back in October about how this was starting a new era in America and that they would definitely last through the winter cold. These protests have culminated in bupkis. I wonder what those bloggers and pundits were saying about the Tea Party rallies in 2009 that culminated in tangible, historic election results in 2010.

So, the Occupy LA response was given live TV coverage last evening, taking over whole newscasts.

Want to know why the movement collapsed? They interviewed the protesters. It wasn't that they were raging, disagreeable, or otherwise grand forces against a settled society. To a person, they were just plain uninteresting, with poor speaking skills, a message that was not as much incoherent as just lacking substance. It was just so clearly protest for protests sake that people just want them to go away, because when we try to listen they don't say anything.

Also, prior to the news switching to Occupy LA coverage, they were covering a live police chase that ended when the driver of the stolen truck made a bad turn, rammed into a parked car, ditched the truck and ran in the middle of houses and apartments. The helicopter watched him. This guy had made no end of highly dangerous maneuvers during the chase, bumping cars, going against traffic, through red lights.

When he finally seemed to stop running and was hiding, we expected police to swarm the area. Took, literally, about 5 minutes for us to see a police car. They had given up the chase as it entered the city of LA. The LAPD were all staging at Dodger's stadium and apparently couldn't bother to arrest the guy. So the news finally switched coverage--and nary a word was mentioned again about the GTA in real life.

We need the police to actually, you know, fight crime, and not be constantly pestered by the need to make sure a bunch of messageless protesters don't continue to destroy a park for no apparent reason than because they want to.

What Tibore said--the media's attention span is very short: case in point: earthquake in Haiti followed by cholera which is still on going--as long as the media focuses on the first two weeks, they probably consider their job done and then move on. The fault dear brutus is not in our stars but in our media. And also I think in the short attention span of many of our citizens.

They interviewed the protesters. It wasn't that they were raging, disagreeable, or otherwise grand forces against a settled society. To a person, they were just plain uninteresting, with poor speaking skills, a message that was not as much incoherent as just lacking substance.

Well, there's that, and the fact that they uttered aneurysm-inducing things like "I believe in personal property, not private property" in response to a request for the speaker in question to loan out his iPad2. The only people that make distinctions between private and personal property are the types that inhabit neo-Marxist forums and attend meetings called for on poorly-printed flyers.

Mr Cook--that is undoubtedly true, but what percentage of Americans get their news from Salon.com? I suspect not many. If it doesnt get covered by the major networks on the evening news, or SNL or the other comedy shows masquerading as news, it probably isnt going to be noticed by a significant percentage of viewers.

As I said on a leftist blog last week, "The Occupy movement is staggering to a desultory end. There may yet be a populist left-wing equivalent of the Tea Party movement, but it will run away from the Occupy brand as fast as it can."

So you've heard of Occupy Wall Street and Occupy L.A.. What's our third largest city? Chicago, right? With a Democratic mayor straight from the White House and an all-D City Council. Heard of Occupy Chicago? No. Why? Because the first night that they tried to camp out in Grant Park Mayor Rahm sent the cops to roust them out before they could get settled in, and they've kept it that way ever since. He's no fool. The city electorate wouldn't stand for it and he knows it.

They lost it. One of the "facilitators" left it on a table in the atrium of the Duetsche Bank where they were holding their meetings when the holder went outside for a toke break. When they came back, it was gone...probably stolen by one of the greedy, capitalist pigdogs who's clean, quiet, and nicely appointed atrium they had decided to hold their meetings in.

We all sort of understand the modus operandi of the "classical" progressives that dominated the media from the 60s up through the 90s (when alternatives emerged) and how they still wield enormous power in Hollywood, TV production, journalism.

They have their hoary "narratives", their cast of noble heroes, the bad guys in the white Christian population, and those who ascended to high Victimhood.The members, liberals and progressive Jews, have from time to time formed Cabals to suppress certain information (John Edwards love child, MLK's shady idulgences) and promote other memes in lockstep (Bush is stupid, Nixon evil, the Kennedys were Gods, Obama as the 2nd Coming).

They went out of their way to try and find tea party members that would "fit" their casting and imagery - any stupid, ignorant, racist elements. Castigate them for their "overwhelming whiteness". While trying to build up OWS as noble everymen and women who were "fed up with Republicans and their cronies". Speaking Truth To Power and all that progressive Jewish and liberal boilerplate.

(Omitting as much as possible their infantile Leftism and "overwhelming whiteness - not that JournaList was not "overwhelmingly white", albeit drawn from small sectors of the white population.)

================Of course, we see a lot of the new "conservative media" employing the same Alinsky tactics and use of narratives (the Richest are in fact our Noble Jobs creators, Bush was Our American Churchill, Obama is not native born)....And less concerned with change than spreading anger to fatten conservative pundit's wallets. Obsessed with imposing purity litmus tests, castigating moderates as RINOS.

Enough that conservative media is not functioning as a balance on the liberals and progressive Jews - but have become another source of polarization and dividing America to facilitate their own pursuit of money and power.

One of my most reliably liberal friends has started mocking the local Occupy College Hill group. When your populist movement is populated by the most privileged students in the world, it's time to give up.

The financial/banking class generally succeeds. For one, they have the corporate media and politicians (even nominal democrats) working for them--simply show a pic of Michael Moore at a protest and some grubby hippies and the tea-zombies will make up their mind. The marginalization of the Occupy message is fairly predictable.

"I wonder what those bloggers and pundits were saying about the Tea Party rallies in 2009 that culminated in tangible, historic election results in 2010."

They weren't saying anything. They either hadn't noticed them or studiously and conspicuously avoided noticing them. Either way, they didn't talk about them. Quite the contrast to the OWS movement, which was noticed by the NYT and every other left-leaning news organization within minutes of the first tent going up. And, of course, the cheerleading immediately followed.

Meanwhile, in those first six months that the Tea Parties got virtually zero mainstream coverage, they grew and consolidated and organized independently of the media. They built a much more solid foundation than the OWS ever had because they were a real movement, not a media creation. Perhaps the lack of coverage was a blessing in disguise. I laugh to this day at the blog comment I read after the first Tax Day Tea Party on April 15, 2009 declaring it an 'Epic fail'. Depsite that dismissal, the Tea Party's power and influence grew and grew and it was Nancy Pelosi who learned the true meaning of epic fail in 2010.

Squatski, we leave that as an exercise (hint--Goldman Sachs, BAD). So like when lunch time arrives at the Peoria hardware store, google around for a few hours. Don't they have like a search function for dyslexic white trash available now? Yeah

Funny. Why would multinational media conglomerates that go out of their way not to cover the issues OWS raise, want to highlight OWS?

Funny. I seem to recall nightly wall-to-wall coverage on all six majors for a good chunk of October. It started peetering out toward Halloween, but that's to be expected given how poorly the protestors were doing PR-wise. The really interesting stuff, being the inner-machinations of those handling the donations to the various protest sites, has yet to be fully explored. I'm betting it will be down-twinkles though.

Squatski, we leave that as an exercise (hint--Goldman Sachs, BAD). So like when lunch time arrives at the Peoria hardware store, google around for a few hours. Don't they have like a search function for dyslexic white trash available now? Yeah

Predictably, you can't answer a simple question. When you start backing up your bullshit, people might start paying attention to you.

Of course, we see a lot of the new "conservative media" employing the same Alinsky tactics and use of narratives (the Richest are in fact our Noble Jobs creators, Bush was Our American Churchill, Obama is not native born)....

Similar tactics but the ends are quite different, obviously C4. However I don't think all the protesters were Alinsky-style leftist-liberals. Some were but there was an anarchistic non-PC aspect as well, C4--. And topless girls at Z- Park.

The supposed liberal corporate media was not exactly approving--especially once a few slightly-anti-zionist messages appeared along with anti-capitalist ones. (Diss Goldman Sachs, ....and yr outta here, kiddo)

Roger J, perp,klansman, trash--I linked to the punk Byro-jay-sorepaw's site numerous times. but you're tweaking and can't even open a link. I suspect yr already like trading kiddie pics together, right puto.

J said...Roger J, perp,klansman, trash--I linked to the punk Byro-jay-sorepaw's site numerous times. but you're tweaking and can't even open a link. I suspect yr already like trading kiddie pics together, right puto

I want to know where the 500k in donations to the NYC group ended up. The media doesnt have much curiosity about that aspect of the collapse of the OWS. Which leader of the leaderless has made off with the dough?

You're the klansman, Rog. the Tennessee teabug. And "down with G-man Sachs/JP Morgan/BoA exploitation/usury" doesn't mean approving of Mein Kampf (or kkk) except to untalented whore-spawn such as you and the Ahouse frat phags.

I guess I won't bother reposting the comments you made here noting that there is a lot of news coverage of "inequality" and "wealth gaps"

I thought slithering out of the thread after being completely shamed yesterday would have been enough for you. But nope, back at again today, like nothing every happened. Didn't your mom and dad ever teach you anything about lying? Were you dropped on your head as a baby? Raised by wolves?

"...the democrat (sic) establishment embrace of the OWS movement will provide some great ad campaigns in the coming election. The D's bought it, they own it."

Really? I hadn't noticed the democratic establishment as having embraced the OWS movement. It would have been refreshing if they had, but the Dems are nearly as unanimous in their servility to Wall Street as the Republicans, unashamed and unapologetic servants to the financial elites.

Really? I hadn't noticed the democratic establishment as having embraced the OWS movement

Laugh out loud funny.

First Vice President Joe Biden and then President Obama signaled they sympathized with the movement. Then, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi gave it a full-on embrace Sunday. “I support the message to the establishment, whether it's Wall Street or the political establishment and the rest, that change has to happen,” she said on ABC’s “This Week.” “We cannot continue in a way that does not — that is not relevant to their lives. People are angry.”

Really? I hadn't noticed the democratic establishment as having embraced the OWS movement

Really?

Describing the protests as “serious” and “encouraging,” Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) praised the sentiment motivating Occupy Wall Street and called for Congress to take heed. “It’s got a clear message, and that is frustration with the way that business is being done, the way that wealth is tilting towards the high end and the middle class is shrinking. And that message needs to be given,” Welch, a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told me on Wednesday. What’s more he added, “it’s a real grassroots, citizens-led initiative. It’s not a top-down effort, it’s bottom up. In that sense, I think it’s very similar to the tea party.”

"I'm guessing that the expression of the protesters — in form and substance — wasn't serving the interests journalists favor. Excessively left-wing speech coming out of an angry/confused/unclean face... it's not helping the mainstream Democrats."

Indeed so. The perpetually alienated are long on complaints, and even by exceptionally low Democrat standards, short on remotely viable solutions. The more the media paid attention to these twits, the greater the embarrassment to ostensibly "mainstream" Democrats.

The only question remaining is, did the journalists come to this conclusion on their own, or did the DNC blow the dog-whistle?

Want to know why the movement collapsed? They interviewed the protesters. It wasn't that they were raging, disagreeable, or otherwise grand forces against a settled society. To a person, they were just plain uninteresting, with poor speaking skills, a message that was not as much incoherent as just lacking substance. It was just so clearly protest for protests sake that people just want them to go away, because when we try to listen they don't say anything.

No kidding, PaddyO.

Last night they interviewed one of the main organizers, up from Occupy San Diego to help with the evacuation protest. He was so obviously high it was distracting. Then there were kids in gas masks and some guy telling people to read up on the Illuminati.

It would have been interesting to see what would have happened with the tents in tonight's expected Santa Ana wind event (hurricane force winds possible), although I suspect that is one reason they wanted to clear everything out now.

Mr Cook--it seems to that both Mr Obama and Former speaker Peolsi have commented favorably on the OWS movement--you may consider these inconsequential, but I think the endorsements speak for themselves.

Headlines aside, who among the democratic establishment embraced OWS? Again, the sincere support of it by a few dems here and there, and the empty rhetoric of a few others, does not constitute wholesale embrace of OWS by the Democrats.

I wish there had been wide and broad and sincere support for OWS by the dems, but I didn't see it.

You claimed I said something which was the complete opposite of what I said. You lied, I called you out on it, and you disappeared. That would shame any ordinary person, but you of course are an extraordinary douchebag.

Democrats, meanwhile, have expressed sympathy for the protesters, saying they speak to the problems that Democrats have been trying to solve with laws like the Dodd Frank Act.

"We share the anger and frustration of so many Americans who have seen the enormous toll that an unchecked Wall Street has taken on the overwhelming majority of Americans while benefitting the super wealthy," Reps. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., and Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the co-chairs of the House Progressive Caucus, said in a statement last week

"'We share the anger and frustration of so many Americans who have seen the enormous toll that an unchecked Wall Street has taken on the overwhelming majority of Americans while benefitting the super wealthy,' Reps. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., and Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the co-chairs of the House Progressive Caucus, said in a statement last week."

Fine sentiments, but pure boilerplate and not specifically an embrace of OWS. Heck, OWS aren't even mentioned in this quote.

Don't think that just because a politician kisses babies on the campaign trail that he or she necessarily loves kids, and just because a few politicians utter make-nice feel-good comments for media consumption does not mean they have any intention of acting on their words. Support comes in action, not rhetoric.

He doesn't have a point. His mother has an egg timer she uses to limit his online use, so he need to post as much as he can, as fast as he can before the bell dings. After that it's a diaper change and a nap before he beg her to get another online session.

garage mahal said...Instead of just saying "I guess I was wrong about that one", Jaytard doubles down on the lying again.

Except I'm not lying.

Watching you pretend that you didn't dispute the assertion that was made about Frank's retirement speaks ill of you.

It's like you would need a stungun to stop this cocksucker from lying.

You mean like you asserting the media hasn't covered the issues OWS has been carrying on about?

Despite that fact that there are links in this thread to ABC, CBS, and the Washington post, and you asserted on this very blog that the issues they raised have been in the news lately. Like that, idiot?

“When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.”Napoleon Bonaparte

J quotes two authoritarian dictators, one right after the other, then thinks we should take what he has to say seriously despite epic levels of spelling and grammar abuse. This from a troll who claims to be a professional editor and published author. Once again, without backup.

Que J's response about not having anything to prove to anyone hereabouts, possibly sprinkled with obtuse references to Peoria and grunting.

‘PaddyO’ said, “Want to know why the movement collapsed? They interviewed the protesters. It wasn't that they were raging, disagreeable, or otherwise grand forces against a settled society. To a person, they were just plain uninteresting…”

Which is to say, it’s very much like the Adbusters magazine “famous for their spoof ads” that supposedly started this Occupy stuff

There’s surely some fun to be made of consumer culture, but the Adbusters staff has never had the wits to make it. Adbusters magazine has always been deadly-dull. Sort of like that “Surplus Value Theory of Labor” lecture you once heard from some earnest young leftie.

So why should anyone be surprised that their Street Theater is no better?

Was the "political substance" of the movement EVER clear? The Adbusters guy who supposedly started it wasn't even clear. It's always seemed to me to be a meeting of random malcontents and their random malcontent overlords.

Occupy SF is still at the Embarcadero in San Fran. Nice area when it's not occupied. SF has offered them some less prime real estate about 16 blocks south. (Without asking the new would-be neighbors, of course.) Last night on the news the occupiers were having a 'general assembly' to decide whether to move. Probably still going on. Drum solos and all.

The Klanhouse also ignores another aspect of Occupy: the right to assemble, protest, file grievances against the Govt.: better to allow DISSENT however ugly than obedience to the corporate-capitalist state.

The Klanhouse also ignores another aspect of Occupy: the right to assemble, protest, file grievances against the Govt.: better to allow DISSENT however ugly than obedience to the corporate-capitalist state.

Shorter J: The Tea Party got hosed paying all those usage fees and should be reimbursed immediately.

The OWS has every right to assemble on the same terms as any other group wishing to express their political opinions. The government has a right to enforce those laws that are on the books relative to requiring parade permits, requiring demonstrators to not block sidewalks, etc. The notion that camping in public places otherwise not set aside for camping is a matter for the courts to handle but I think most would agree that the camping is not a component of speech.

I for one hope the OWS movements can hold out for another year. The message will become more clear as the movement decomposes.

Anyone who wants to know about current or future occupy protests, events or activities can easily find that information on many internet websites. Occupy Phoenix for example today protested against lobbyists owning our state legislatures at the American Legislative Exchange Summit held at some fancy Scottsdale resort. OWS protested today against war profiteering at the 17th annual Aerospace & Defense Finance Conference in NYC. Occupy groups across the country are leading actions to protect homeowners from foreclosure, stop cuts to education and healthcare, and are winning federal lawsuits that allow them the right to stay in public parks indefinitely. Academics, economists, church leaders and other public figures are speaking out in favor of OWS causes. Corporate news media such as CNN and Fox news could not be expected to report on such stories. People who choose to be uninformed shall remain uninformed.

The political substance of the movement at last:http://www.punditpress.com/2011/11/ows-website-releases-official-goal.htmlStomp out capitalism.Darn it, kids, we need some capitalism to pay for the government. Buh bye!

...numerous protests in NYC tonight, following Obama around for his events including a fundraising dinner on 12th street...Jackson Browne performs tomorrow 1pm at Zuccotti Park..and occupy faith, a NYC interfaith coalition that supports OWS will be protesting at Lincoln Center tomorrow with a mic check by Phillip Glass to protest the anti-democratic policies of Lincoln Center and Bloomberg on the last performance of Satyagraha which ironically depicts Gandhi's early struggle against colonial oppression in South Africa.

I'm guessing that the expression of the protesters — in form and substance — wasn't serving the interests journalists favor.... it's not helping the mainstream Democrats.

Except in Seattle, Portland and Oakland. There, the alleged 'occupiers' (actually they could be any sort of riffraff) are breaking into vacant homes and 'occupying' them by squatting.

The AP has a mushy article, chirping and cooing about their alleged desire for a 'sustainable community'. So if that helps the Democrats, that's where the journ-o-listic energy is going for the moment. But you won't find any curiosity among the AP about the sources of support for their groceries, and for the materials they expend in their alleged 'improvements' to the homes.

Apparently, Lincoln Center was "built where public housing and a preeminent Black neighborhood once stood." And tickets for Satyagraha are really expensive. And Bloomberg gave a lot of money to make the production possible.

The puzzling part is Glass's participation. He knew damn well at the time -- Satyagraha is more than thirty years old -- that he was writing really expensive music; why is he turning out in solidarity with people who think opera is a waste of money, that people who donate money to opera companies are starving the poor, and that Lincoln Center just takes up space better used for public housing?

It's all here -- which might also indicate why new york's posts read like press releases.

At least we haven't seen "Occupy Juilliard" and "Occupy Fordham University." Yet.

Here in Eugene, Oregon the occupiers are up against a city council decision that is permitting them to occupy their park legally until the 15th; while Eugene and the present city council are generally reliable allies of the fashionable movements and causes (a ban on plastic bags is being debated...), a couple of the councillors are apparently... vacillating on whether to extend the variance that is allowing the campers to camp. The comrades' park is also (and has been since forever) one of the more visible gathering places for the area's homeless population/drugs-using population. The comrades and those two other populations don't co-exist without a certain friction....